I read yesterday a post in Arab observer blog about boycotting restaurants in Amman with cover charges. I like to be proactive rather than reactive, I feel most of the times boycotting is an action taken from a hopeless, like when we boycott Israel, Denmark, or the US. However, for those who take boycotting as a hopeless strategy I scratched my head about another reason to "boycott" the restaurants and cafe's in Amman:
Only for families "3a2ellat". We all know what it means, single men are not allowed to enter the restaurant or cafe without bringing girls. So single men, you either go back to your guys only place or bring a girl just to get in.
Maybe it's a hopeless dream not to be sexiest in this country because everybody will say: We need a social reform. If the guys are not welcomed to enjoy their city how will those guys become the leaders of the social reforms?
We can list the restaurants in Amman that are sexiest who refuse our single men to enter just because they are men and write a complaining letter to our ministry of tourism, who all the time promote for "Local Tourism" and publish it on-line.
Single men: Don't you hate it when this happens to you?
2 comments:
hmmm this is interesting. i wonder, what about the qahwas and other places that are culturally for men only? aren't these family restaurants a reaction to those places? should women protest places that are for men, too, then?
I don't see them as a reaction or an alternative to Qahwas.
Many men don't like going for Qahwas, especially who don't smoke.
So what's the alternative? Have a girl with you or go home!
Either ways, this is a sexiest action.
Any public service can have it's unique customers without imposing rules. They can be a destination for young men, old women, hippies, or else.
Why I don't see this in the west? Imagine going to Starbucks and not allowing you to set down just because you are a guy or girl????
Post a Comment